Trump responds to Google admitting they want to keep Trump from winning in 2020

This morning Trump responded to the investigation by Project Veritas exposing Google’s attempts to keep him from winning in 2020:

Essentially Trump says Google is what we should be investigating and not continuing the phony witch hunt from 2016.



Here’s a partial transcript provided by Project Veritas:

TRUMP: You saw what happened yesterday with Google. Google was totally biased, like you know they talk about Russia, because they have some bloggers. And by the way some of those bloggers were going both ways they were for Clinton and for Trump.

MARIA: Well somebody at Google said they what happened in 2016 to happen in 2020. They don’t want it to happen again.

TRUMP: Let me tell you, they’re trying to rig the election. That’s what we should be looking at, not the phony witch hunt. This is the greatest political disgrace in history…

TRUMP: They should be sued. What’s happening with the bias, and now you see it with that executive yesterday from Google the hatred for Republicans. It’s not even like let’s lean democrat. The hatred. And actually I heard that all during my election. They were swamping us with negative stuff.

I can’t disagree with Trump. It is an absolute disgrace to treat a president like this, with such hostility. And the media and Democrats don’t even care about this story. Not one iota.

I mean look, you don’t have to like Trump and you certainly don’t have to vote for him. But for a company like Google to use all of their resources to try and stop a Trump victory – well it’s despicable. Because what they are really doing is spitting in the faces of all the Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and those who intend to vote for him in 2020.

And if you think I’m wrong, just ask yourself if it would have been ok for Google or any big company like them to do the same to America’s first black president in 2012.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

126 thoughts on “Trump responds to Google admitting they want to keep Trump from winning in 2020

    1. There’s more to the story.

      The Washington Post reported:

      The forum, called “r/The_Donald,” has long served as a highly trafficked and controversial gathering place for supporters of Trump and Republicans on Reddit, America’s fifth-most popular website.

      Created in 2015, “The_Donald” counts roughly 750,000 followers and advertises itself as “a never-ending rally dedicated to the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.”
      Reddit officials said on Wednesday that the board had allowed or encouraged months of “rule-breaking behavior,” including the “encouragement of violence towards police officers and public officials in Oregon.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/26/pro-trump-message-board-quarantined-by-reddit-following-violent-threats/

  1. The Left loves to chant “This is what democracy looks like.”
    Google subverts democracy.

  2. The Left has no respect for anyone who isn’t deemed on their side. The decay in decency and civility is the result.

  3. As the underlying video is not an uncut and unabridged video of Ms. Gennai’s comments, it is uncertain whether she meant Trump’s election or the foreign interference (e.g., Russian trolls and bots) that made use of Social Media when she referred to the “Trump situation.” The former (deploying products/services to bring about an election outcome) would be problematic; the latter would not. The abridged and spliced video does not include content or other evidence that would allow one to gain the necessary perspective on what took place. Thus, I take no position on this matter, aside from noting that critical contextual content is absent.

  4. If Russia can be prosecuted for interfering in our elections why can’t Google? At least, they’re here in the US and the country can witness the prosecutions. Hope the DOJ is watching and listening.

    1. How is Google going to help these Democrats in the debates tonight “out stupid” each other ?

      1. It will be in all the spin they promote afterwards. You’ll do a search for “project veritas google expose” and the results will all be clips from the Democrat debate.

      2. @landscaper They don’t need any help with “stupid”. They’re coming fully equipped to embarrass themselves. 😕

        Are you going to watch? I’m not going to bother because I’d have to turn it off after the first five minutes. Can only stand so much “stupid”.

        1. 1- @mom, I forget that pesky /sarc tag.
          2- I might watch a few minutes like those idiots on the roads who rubber neck a fender bender looking for blood and guts.

          1. @landscaper I knew you were being sarcastic but I wasn’t. 😉
            When I say coming “fully equipped” I meant it. They practice “the stupid” every time they speak.

  5. They believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    But not those people!

  6. But for a company like Google to use all of their resources to try and stop a Trump victory – well it’s despicable.

    Why? Why is that despicable? They have the clout and the ear of the people, why shouldn’t they use it?

    Look, I don’t want a blue jersey progressive to win any more than I want another four years of progressive Donald, but all we’re talking about is a company with the ability AND FREEDOM to influence voters. How is that any different than if Google spent ten billion of their dollars to put up billboards and host anti-Trump town halls in every city in America?

    And what if the coin was flipped? What if Google was using their power and influence to support Trump and try to tip the scales against the Democrats? Would we have a problem with that too?

    1. And if you think I’m wrong, just ask yourself if it would have been ok for Google or any big company like them to do the same to America’s first black president in 2012.

      Yes! It would have! If they have an interest in not seeing him elected, and have the power to do something about it – hell yes I would have been OK with it. Why wouldn’t I be?

    2. TRUMP: Let me tell you, they’re trying to rig the election.

      Oh for the love of… No they’re not Donald. That’s not what “election rigging” means. How are you this dumb. Why are you President? What morons happily supported you for this?

      Because what they are really doing is spitting in the faces of all the Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and those who intend to vote for him in 2020.

      So what! They can do that! I (digitally) spit in their faces too. What of it? I don’t like the guy, nor have I supported his Presidency. I hate progressives being elected. Does that make me unAmerican? A traitor? Am I not allowed to think poorly of the knuckle-dragging idiots who got behind this progressive dirtbag? To call them out for it? To work against them?

  7. I love the way he gets the little dig in at the end of the clip “My father always told me if you spend less and still win, that’s a good thing!”

    Words to live by! 😎

    1. @tracy Ya, poor guy got pummeled by over 1,000 responses for his mind-numbing remarks. Here’s my response:

      Hey Brian, are you saying @CNN gets all its information from “google”? And let me get this straight, @CNN can’t lead on a story? They actually rely on other “news account”s to lead? How pathetic!

  8. I’m going to go on record as saying that I will be voting for Trump in 2020. I still don’t like his personality or character but he has grown into his position and has been remarkably productive and beneficial to America. And honestly, that’s enough for me now. He has a track record and accomplishments and obviously loves America.

    With the way the damned, criminal MSM and Leftists (which includes democrats) have unfairly treated him, another term would be a perfect kick in the groin to these animals.

    1. @muckjumper Me too. Though I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 I’m definitely voting for him in 2020 and for much the same reasons. We have to crush the Left enough it will take years for them to come back.

    2. I will go on record saying that, as it stands now, I’m in the same position I was in 2016. I see no valid conservative basis to support a progressive candidate just because he’s wearing team colors.

      He has 495 days to change his approach and earn my vote. Otherwise, I find a candidate I can support – however impotent the gesture may be.

      1. @AT Good luck with that. There are so few true conservatives in the public eye and none of them are politicians or running, so you’re left with “Who’s the most conservative of those who will run?” Then you need to figure out if the person claiming to be the most conservative will actually keep their promises of being conservative, which sadly most don’t.

        The one thing I’ve got to say about Trump is he really has tried to keep his promises. I’m almost gobbsmacked by saying that because I never would have guessed the absolute pathological liar running for election even understood what keeping a promise meant. Even the things he’s doing that aren’t conservative, he ran on so you can’t hold that against him, just the people who voted for him.

        1. so you’re left with “Who’s the most conservative of those who will run?”

          The vote is mine. I don’t have to submit to this perennial “if you don’t vote for x, you’re voting for y” or “you must vote for the lesser of two evils.” No. I’d rather vote for the lesser of 5 or 6 evils and withhold my imprimatur from whichever progressive aristocrat wins. At least then my vote tells the aristocracy I won’t keep giving them my consent.

          Voting for statists and DC aristocrats expecting things to get better is like putting a kid in slower classes expecting that will help them catch up to their peers.

          The GOP specifically takes conservatives for granted. They didn’t just fail to earn my vote, they actively campaigned against my rights. That is why I left the GOP. That is why I’ll never vote again in a GOP primary.

        2. I don’t even care if he’s “true conservative” – whatever that means. Just so long as he’s not progressive.

          The one thing I’ve got to say about Trump is he really has tried to keep his promises.

          I didn’t care for a lot of his promises, nor how he aimed to make good on them. Again, not a fan of progressivism – and I won’t vote for it.

    3. @muckjumper I’m still not sure. It depends a lot on how much he improves his stance on the second amendment.

      1. @dr-strangelove However, with a Democrat in the WH you will be guaranteed to lose your 2nd Amendment rights. Something to think about……….just saying

          1. @dr-strangelove For years we did have a binary choice in elections. Now we have NO choice if we want to keep our nation intact.

          2. We didn’t lose ground under Zero. Now we’ve seen an executive ban by redefinition and we’re staring at the absurd ban on already highly regulated suppressors because a yahoo used a “suppressor-like device.” Worst of all though are the red-flag laws.

            Living in Texas, I have a bit of a luxury in I can vote for a pro-RKBA candidate without real consequences. I could conceivably vote for the president, but I am doubtful, at best.

        1. Really? For all Zero’s bluster, we didn’t lose any ground on gun owner’s rights until this administration took office. The fact is the GOP does a much better job fighting Democrats on gutting the 2nd amendment than fighting a Republican president on the same issues.

      2. @dr-strangelove Your 2A rights won’t mean a lot when your Dem President (whichever one of the 2 dozen+) takes your guns out of your cold dead hands.

        1. @nc-checks-and-balances Tromp is already eroding our rights with the bump stock ban and his support for red flag laws and banning suppressors.

          1. @dr-strangelove Fine, take your chances with one of those Dems. Half of them are making their case tonight.

        2. For all his nattering, Zero never successfully did squat. This president has done far more damage to gun owner’s rights than Zero. If a federal red-flag law passes, add the 2nd to the 9th and 10th amendments repealed by government fiat.

          1. @txgrunner Agreed. The Bill of Rights is the wall that keeps the government off of our property and the second amendment is the locked gate. I don’t think that people realize how important it is.

    4. At this time I am inclined to as well… but it depends how the border crisis is handled and it better be soon.

  9. Google, fakebook, twitter are all publishers, not public utilities, and, as such, all should have their legal protections removed.

    1. If they won’t do as I tell them, I say they should be controlled.

      That’s the Conservative way.

      1. AT, uh no. If they won’t do and act as they say they will or the law requires, they will be regulated. There’s nothing new there and one of the Constitutional roles of the Government is to protect the citizenry from shady interstate businesses.

        1. When @atomicsentinel is being like this, just ignore him. The last three threads on big tech censorship this has worked quite well – just downvote him.

          When he’s serious, like sub-thread above, @atomicsentinel actually contributes to the conversation.

          1. The less the better, but some of it is a necessary Evil to keep bad actors from doing whatever they want.

            1. Aren’t you tired of all the “necessary” evils we seem to have to endure?

              Can’t we try some good for a change?

              1. You have just reminded me that we have some philosophical differences wherein you’re not really a big believer in the “we need to have institutions to protect us from evil people”, thus your position on police ( I imagine you or someone close to you had a bad run in with cops at one time). I believe, as did our founders, that you have as little regulation and oversight as possible, BUT you do need some organizations, like the military, FBI, FEC, to protect the citizenry against people who don’t care about following the rules or how what they do affects other people. What I don’t think we need is organizations like HUD and the FTA using tax payer money to influence how others live their lives. There are a plethora of other Government agencies that fall in this category. Dept of Education is another Government overreach IMO. But of course students have gotten smarter since Big Daddy Fed got involved in education (sarc).

                That being said, I will have to respect you and I hold different opinions in this regard, and neither of us is going to convince the other to change our positions.

                Have a good one AT.

  10. Shouldn’t the FEC look into Google’s monetary expenditures into the political process?

    1. Anyone can file a complaint with the FEC and make the claim, using the project veritas videos, Google was making an illegal in-kind donation. More likely, they’d consider it an independent expenditure, but there are rules for that too. Google clearly violated them.

      The FEC would have to receive hundreds of complaints before they’d take it seriously though. Also, unlike Dinesh D’Souza, who was sent to prison for a minor FEC violation, Google would probably get nothing more than a stern reprimand.

  11. Shouldn’t the FEC look into Google’s monetary expenditures into the political process?

    1. There’s more to the story.

      The Washington Post reported:

      The forum, called “r/The_Donald,” has long served as a highly trafficked and controversial gathering place for supporters of Trump and Republicans on Reddit, America’s fifth-most popular website.

      Created in 2015, “The_Donald” counts roughly 750,000 followers and advertises itself as “a never-ending rally dedicated to the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.”
      Reddit officials said on Wednesday that the board had allowed or encouraged months of “rule-breaking behavior,” including the “encouragement of violence towards police officers and public officials in Oregon.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/26/pro-trump-message-board-quarantined-by-reddit-following-violent-threats/

        1. Do the Chinese investors hold a controlling or minority stake interest? Do the Chinese investors play an active role in running the company? Those questions are some starting points.

          1. I dont know – the Chinese and the anti- Trump have the same goals so they may not have needed to apply pressure if they had the ability.

            The subreddit has a lot of trolls post there though, and volunteers to remove posts that are against the rules. Reddit even said they removed them but still they quaranteen.

            1. According to the news article to which I linked the “months of ‘rule-breaking behavior'” was tolerated. The process wasn’t working.

      1. Yes Don, excuse the leftist bias and election meddling! Ofcourse you are also one of the few on here who defended the “witch hunt” by Mueller as well, so no surprise.

        1. So, dealing with an issue of incitement to violence is an act of “leftist bias?”

          1. @don-sutherland I somehow doubt you spent anytime on the subreddit.

            There are thousands of posts there, and there are also infiltrators who post violent posts and the volunteer staff do remove them. Reddit even said most were removed by the staff.

            So if they are being removed and moderated why quarantine? Now they are not even able to moderate the subreddit so soon it will be removed.

  12. The Left has no respect for anyone who isn’t deemed on their side. The decay in decency and civility is the result.

  13. The Left loves to chant “This is what democracy looks like.”
    Google subverts democracy.

  14. But for a company like Google to use all of their resources to try and stop a Trump victory – well it’s despicable.

    Why? Why is that despicable? They have the clout and the ear of the people, why shouldn’t they use it?

    Look, I don’t want a blue jersey progressive to win any more than I want another four years of progressive Donald, but all we’re talking about is a company with the ability AND FREEDOM to influence voters. How is that any different than if Google spent ten billion of their dollars to put up billboards and host anti-Trump town halls in every city in America?

    And what if the coin was flipped? What if Google was using their power and influence to support Trump and try to tip the scales against the Democrats? Would we have a problem with that too?

    1. TRUMP: Let me tell you, they’re trying to rig the election.

      Oh for the love of… No they’re not Donald. That’s not what “election rigging” means. How are you this dumb. Why are you President? What morons happily supported you for this?

      Because what they are really doing is spitting in the faces of all the Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and those who intend to vote for him in 2020.

      So what! They can do that! I (digitally) spit in their faces too. What of it? I don’t like the guy, nor have I supported his Presidency. I hate progressives being elected. Does that make me unAmerican? A traitor? Am I not allowed to think poorly of the knuckle-dragging idiots who got behind this progressive dirtbag? To call them out for it? To work against them?

    2. And if you think I’m wrong, just ask yourself if it would have been ok for Google or any big company like them to do the same to America’s first black president in 2012.

      Yes! It would have! If they have an interest in not seeing him elected, and have the power to do something about it – hell yes I would have been OK with it. Why wouldn’t I be?

  15. They believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    But not those people!

  16. As the underlying video is not an uncut and unabridged video of Ms. Gennai’s comments, it is uncertain whether she meant Trump’s election or the foreign interference (e.g., Russian trolls and bots) that made use of Social Media when she referred to the “Trump situation.” The former (deploying products/services to bring about an election outcome) would be problematic; the latter would not. The abridged and spliced video does not include content or other evidence that would allow one to gain the necessary perspective on what took place. Thus, I take no position on this matter, aside from noting that critical contextual content is absent.

    1. @tracy Ya, poor guy got pummeled by over 1,000 responses for his mind-numbing remarks. Here’s my response:

      Hey Brian, are you saying @CNN gets all its information from “google”? And let me get this straight, @CNN can’t lead on a story? They actually rely on other “news account”s to lead? How pathetic!

  17. If Russia can be prosecuted for interfering in our elections why can’t Google? At least, they’re here in the US and the country can witness the prosecutions. Hope the DOJ is watching and listening.

    1. How is Google going to help these Democrats in the debates tonight “out stupid” each other ?

      1. @landscaper They don’t need any help with “stupid”. They’re coming fully equipped to embarrass themselves. 😕

        Are you going to watch? I’m not going to bother because I’d have to turn it off after the first five minutes. Can only stand so much “stupid”.

        1. 1- @mom, I forget that pesky /sarc tag.
          2- I might watch a few minutes like those idiots on the roads who rubber neck a fender bender looking for blood and guts.

          1. @landscaper I knew you were being sarcastic but I wasn’t. 😉
            When I say coming “fully equipped” I meant it. They practice “the stupid” every time they speak.

      2. It will be in all the spin they promote afterwards. You’ll do a search for “project veritas google expose” and the results will all be clips from the Democrat debate.

  18. I love the way he gets the little dig in at the end of the clip “My father always told me if you spend less and still win, that’s a good thing!”

    Words to live by! 😎

  19. I’m going to go on record as saying that I will be voting for Trump in 2020. I still don’t like his personality or character but he has grown into his position and has been remarkably productive and beneficial to America. And honestly, that’s enough for me now. He has a track record and accomplishments and obviously loves America.

    With the way the damned, criminal MSM and Leftists (which includes democrats) have unfairly treated him, another term would be a perfect kick in the groin to these animals.

    1. @muckjumper I’m still not sure. It depends a lot on how much he improves his stance on the second amendment.

      1. @dr-strangelove However, with a Democrat in the WH you will be guaranteed to lose your 2nd Amendment rights. Something to think about……….just saying

          1. @dr-strangelove For years we did have a binary choice in elections. Now we have NO choice if we want to keep our nation intact.

          2. We didn’t lose ground under Zero. Now we’ve seen an executive ban by redefinition and we’re staring at the absurd ban on already highly regulated suppressors because a yahoo used a “suppressor-like device.” Worst of all though are the red-flag laws.

            Living in Texas, I have a bit of a luxury in I can vote for a pro-RKBA candidate without real consequences. I could conceivably vote for the president, but I am doubtful, at best.

        1. Really? For all Zero’s bluster, we didn’t lose any ground on gun owner’s rights until this administration took office. The fact is the GOP does a much better job fighting Democrats on gutting the 2nd amendment than fighting a Republican president on the same issues.

      2. @dr-strangelove Your 2A rights won’t mean a lot when your Dem President (whichever one of the 2 dozen+) takes your guns out of your cold dead hands.

        1. @nc-checks-and-balances Tromp is already eroding our rights with the bump stock ban and his support for red flag laws and banning suppressors.

          1. @dr-strangelove Fine, take your chances with one of those Dems. Half of them are making their case tonight.

            1. @nc-checks-and-balances I’m not voting Democrat, if that’s what you’re implying. He’ll more than likely win if the economy holds up. What difference does it make if we lose our rights under him or a Democrat?

              1. @dr-strangelove I know you’d never vote Dem, and I don’t mean to be pissy about it. If you’re in a deep Blue (or Red) state, knock yourself out with your “conscience.” But if you’re in a swing state, and I wish I was, I really believe we have to look at the big picture. And yes, that is the dreaded “binary choice.” We can’t afford to blow this.

                1. @dr-strangelove I’m speaking about your state, namely the Electoral College votes. Isn’t Iowa a swing state?

                  Compared to say, CA where I am. I could vote for anyone I want for President and it wouldn’t make any difference. Down ballot, of course is a different story.

        2. For all his nattering, Zero never successfully did squat. This president has done far more damage to gun owner’s rights than Zero. If a federal red-flag law passes, add the 2nd to the 9th and 10th amendments repealed by government fiat.

          1. @txgrunner Agreed. The Bill of Rights is the wall that keeps the government off of our property and the second amendment is the locked gate. I don’t think that people realize how important it is.

    2. @muckjumper Me too. Though I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 I’m definitely voting for him in 2020 and for much the same reasons. We have to crush the Left enough it will take years for them to come back.

    3. At this time I am inclined to as well… but it depends how the border crisis is handled and it better be soon.

    4. I will go on record saying that, as it stands now, I’m in the same position I was in 2016. I see no valid conservative basis to support a progressive candidate just because he’s wearing team colors.

      He has 495 days to change his approach and earn my vote. Otherwise, I find a candidate I can support – however impotent the gesture may be.

      1. @AT Good luck with that. There are so few true conservatives in the public eye and none of them are politicians or running, so you’re left with “Who’s the most conservative of those who will run?” Then you need to figure out if the person claiming to be the most conservative will actually keep their promises of being conservative, which sadly most don’t.

        The one thing I’ve got to say about Trump is he really has tried to keep his promises. I’m almost gobbsmacked by saying that because I never would have guessed the absolute pathological liar running for election even understood what keeping a promise meant. Even the things he’s doing that aren’t conservative, he ran on so you can’t hold that against him, just the people who voted for him.

        1. I don’t even care if he’s “true conservative” – whatever that means. Just so long as he’s not progressive.

          The one thing I’ve got to say about Trump is he really has tried to keep his promises.

          I didn’t care for a lot of his promises, nor how he aimed to make good on them. Again, not a fan of progressivism – and I won’t vote for it.

        2. so you’re left with “Who’s the most conservative of those who will run?”

          The vote is mine. I don’t have to submit to this perennial “if you don’t vote for x, you’re voting for y” or “you must vote for the lesser of two evils.” No. I’d rather vote for the lesser of 5 or 6 evils and withhold my imprimatur from whichever progressive aristocrat wins. At least then my vote tells the aristocracy I won’t keep giving them my consent.

          Voting for statists and DC aristocrats expecting things to get better is like putting a kid in slower classes expecting that will help them catch up to their peers.

          The GOP specifically takes conservatives for granted. They didn’t just fail to earn my vote, they actively campaigned against my rights. That is why I left the GOP. That is why I’ll never vote again in a GOP primary.

  20. Google, fakebook, twitter are all publishers, not public utilities, and, as such, all should have their legal protections removed.

    1. If they won’t do as I tell them, I say they should be controlled.

      That’s the Conservative way.

      1. AT, uh no. If they won’t do and act as they say they will or the law requires, they will be regulated. There’s nothing new there and one of the Constitutional roles of the Government is to protect the citizenry from shady interstate businesses.

          1. The less the better, but some of it is a necessary Evil to keep bad actors from doing whatever they want.

            1. Aren’t you tired of all the “necessary” evils we seem to have to endure?

              Can’t we try some good for a change?

              1. You have just reminded me that we have some philosophical differences wherein you’re not really a big believer in the “we need to have institutions to protect us from evil people”, thus your position on police ( I imagine you or someone close to you had a bad run in with cops at one time). I believe, as did our founders, that you have as little regulation and oversight as possible, BUT you do need some organizations, like the military, FBI, FEC, to protect the citizenry against people who don’t care about following the rules or how what they do affects other people. What I don’t think we need is organizations like HUD and the FTA using tax payer money to influence how others live their lives. There are a plethora of other Government agencies that fall in this category. Dept of Education is another Government overreach IMO. But of course students have gotten smarter since Big Daddy Fed got involved in education (sarc).

                That being said, I will have to respect you and I hold different opinions in this regard, and neither of us is going to convince the other to change our positions.

                Have a good one AT.

        1. When @atomicsentinel is being like this, just ignore him. The last three threads on big tech censorship this has worked quite well – just downvote him.

          When he’s serious, like sub-thread above, @atomicsentinel actually contributes to the conversation.

Comments are closed.